Home » Blogs » Blog the Vote » The signage saga continues

The signage saga continues

Week two of the high octane nomination period has begun so let’s see if we can stretch 500 words out of it, shall we?

The first week of nominations was highlighted by some proposed changes to the way campaigns are run at Western.

The second week? Well, it’s been highlighted by some other proposed changes to the way campaigns are run at Western.

So is life in an election no one cares about for a position that the most qualified candidates don’t want. But we’ll write about it — I mean, someone has to.

Since the first attempt at an open forum for By-Law 2, the USC’s official elections manual, was such a smashing success, we’ll be doing it all over again this Wednesday from 5:30-6:30 in the USC boardroom.

It’s tough to conjure up a whole new roster of jokes so you can really just read last week’s blog post on the first meeting and adjust the date to a week later. I know what you’re thinking — topping last week’s attendance of 10 will be tough. But the USC can dream, can’t they?

Once again, the Gazette will be there to see if anything actually happens — don’t hold yer breath — and report on it thusly.

The bigger news will come later that night when the USC votes on a motion put forward by Ivey President Marino Felice and King’s representative Emily Jarvis to ban all outdoor signage during the campaign period. It’s unclear what kind of legs this motion has with council but if it is passed and comes into effect for the upcoming campaign period it would be pretty monumental.

The motion must be especially worrisome for potential candidates who have already prepared their signage ahead of the beginning of campaigning on Feb. 1. An outdoor signage ban would render much of their materials useless.

Even more worrisome? This proposed policy from Western’s Board of Governors that could come into effect on Thursday, just four days before the campaign period.

The policy would limit outdoor signage to designated areas on campus, set a maximum sign size of 2’ x 4’, ban any signs that are driven into the ground with a stake and eliminate all signs and posters affixed to any campus structure.

According to the proposal, “the 2010 student election campaign was particularly challenging both in terms of the magnitude of the signage that was everywhere on campus and the mess that was left after the election campaign was over.”

Well put. But likely nothing short of a flat out ban would solve the problem of left-over signs littering university grounds. Regardless, it will be nice to have the egregious campaign signage limited to at least particular segments of campus. Call me biased but Western is one of the more attractive university campuses in Ontario and coating it with large, far-too-often-neon-coloured signage designed to attract attention with its loudness really ruins campus for two weeks every year.

We’ll have a clearer idea of the signage limitations come Friday, but for now we can be fairly certain that there will be major and welcome changes to the ways candidates can campaign this year.

‘Bout time — mascot ban next, please.

Follow the Gazette on Facebook and Twitter.